STICKNEY ?. KELSEY. Op/nion of the ?ourL STICKNEY v. KELSEY, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. ERROR TO THE HURROGATES ? COURT IN AND FOR THE COUI?FI'Y OF NEW YORK? STATE OF NEW YORK. No, I?., Submitted March 20, 1008.--Decid? April 6, 1?8. A ruling by the highest court of the State sustaining the method of prov- ing the ex/stence of a law of that State pre?ente no Federal queetlon. Where the langus? of the appellate court is ambiguous, if it may be taken ? s declination to pass upon a question not nece?ary to the decision, this court will not, in order to aid s technical and non-meritorious de- fen?, spell out a Federal question; but it will resolve the amb/gu/ty ?in?t the p]?/ntiff in error who is bound, in order to give this court jurisdiction, to cle4?riy ?how that a Federal right has been impaired. Wr/t of error to r?view 185 N.Y. 107, dismissed. TB? facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Edwo?d Mitchell for plaintiffs in error. Mr. David B. Hill for defendant in error. MR. Jus?cE Moore delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error to a Surrogates' Court of the State of New York. The judgment brought under review was entered in obedience to a judgment of the Court of Appeals of that State. The judgment impoeed a transfer tax upon certain real property devised by the will of Joseph Stickney, deceased. The tax was properly aese?ed if an act purporting to be passed .on March 16, 1903, 1 Session Laws of 1903, p. 165, was a duly enacted law of the ?tate. It ?ppears that, by the constitu- tion of the State, l?ws of the nature of this .one require for their due enactment a majority vote in each.l?gislafive cham- ber when three-fifths of the members are present. The pre- siding officers of both branches of the legislature, in certifying that this bill was duly passed by a majority vote, failed to certify that three-fifths of the members were then present.
�
